Case Details: Atha Mines Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam (2026) 40 Centax 89 (Tri.-Hyd)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Angad Prasad, Member (J) & A.K. Jyotishi, Member (T)
- Shri Narendra Dave & Ms Nandita Reddy, Advs., for the Appellants.
- Shri M. Anukathir Surya, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The appellant challenged the re-determination of transaction value by the department for exports of iron ore fines. The department rejected the declared invoice value and recalculated the assessable value by relying on a contemporaneous export of iron ore containing 58% Fe by another exporter, without examining contract terms, quantity, quality, elemental composition, or destination of the goods exported by the appellant. It was submitted that the declared invoice value, corroborated by Bank Realisation Certificates (BRCs), represented the actual amount received and duty was discharged accordingly. There was no evidence of related-party transactions or consideration in excess of the declared value. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the transaction value supported by BRCs must be accepted as the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act read with Rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal observed that reliance on a contemporaneous export by another exporter was unsustainable, as it did not account for the appellant’s specific quantity, quality, and elemental composition, and there was no evidence of excess consideration received. Accordingly, the re-determination of value by the department was set aside, affirming that the declared transaction value is the correct basis for export duty assessment.
List of Cases Cited
- BTM Exports v. Commissioner — 2017 (11) TMI 1530 (CESTAT-Hyd) — Relied on [Paras 4, 10]
- Commissioner v. VGM Exports — 2013 (291) E.L.T. 572 (Tri.-Bom) — Relied on [Paras 4, 11]
- Daksh Minerals v. Commissioner — 2024 (5) TMI 1155 – CESTAT-Hyd — Followed [Paras 3, 15, 17]
- Devika Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (167) E.L.T. 75 (Tri-Mum) — Relied on [Paras 4, 10, 11]
- Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 4, 10]
- Essel Mining & Industries v. Commissioner — Final Order No. A/30358/2023 dated 24.08.2023 — Relied on [Paras 4, 11]
- Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (370) E.L.T. 838 (Tri. – Hyd.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (320) E.L.T. 499 (Bom.) — Distinguished [Paras 5, 18]
- Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (313) E.L.T. 317 (Tri. – Kolkata) — Referred [Para 5]
- Welspun Corp. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (370) E.L.T. 874 (Tri. – Ahmd.) — Referred [Para 5]
